Guys, I have a radio interview on thursday, probably a small audience, but still I want to have my ducks lined up so to speak.

The Arizona issue prompted the interview. The host is runs a program dealing with transgender issues and she is based out of New Jersey.

We connected months ago on face book and since I am involved with the Pink Pistols, I guess I was a natural fit.

Of course the fixation is that evil 30 round magazine, it must have possessed a "Evil Spirit".

So, I need real details so I can be immediately on offense and basically take over her show.

So here is what I know so far.

1. The shooter had drug convictions, but he was allowed to do diversion.

To me that says that he would go outside of the law to get whatever he wanted and common sense would say that a ban of over 10 round magazines would be as effective as our drug war.

2. He had issues with Congresswoman Gilford for over 3 years.

3. His home was found full of left wing anarchist type stuff, hardly a Sarah Palin fan.

Now, let's talk about the actual shooting. My understanding is that he shot away for 15 seconds and only when he paused to reload, then people rushed him.

Now, here is a technical question.

Standard magazines for Glocks are drop free, so someone who knows what they are doing can easily reload in under 2 seconds.

Do the 30 round Glock magazines stick or do they also drop free.
Do they tend to jam?
Do they often fail to hold the slide open after last shot.

In other words, are they less reliable than standard mags, especially when full loaded?

My understanding is that the Shooter was fumbling with his gun and that he was fumbling enough that people decided to attack. My understanding is that someone actually was able to grab the clip because it stuck out so much.

Where I am going is that if the shooter was unable to get the big mag, if he was forced to use only standard or even neutered mags, he could have done just as much, maybe even more damage.

My personal rate of fire with a semi with fast aimed fire is roughly 3 shots per second, if I was just hosing, I could easily hit 5 rounds per second.

Since my reload speed if I use pouches is roughly 1.5 seconds, if I was going on a so called spree, I could shoot 30 aimed rounds with 2 mag changes in roughly 15 seconds.

Of course I would be loaded my 4th mag at the end of 15 seconds and I would be ready to shoot more people.

If my insight is correct, I want to turn the high cap issue into what it is, BS, then focus on other issues, namely how this guy slipped through the system and how there are reports coming now about the local sheriff dropped the ball several times in the past.

I will find out if she has a pod or internet address so you guys can listen later.

Nicki

pointedstick

01-22-2011, 10:30 PM

Alan gura recently said something about this in the video on this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387740):

"Well, the problem with people like Loughner is that he had even one shot! It's not like it would have been a great thing if he had only killed three people, it would still have been a disaster! We need to make sure that people like Loughner don't get access to any kind of firearm and not to go after arbitrary bans on things that normal people use for legitimate lawful purposes."

I would also focus on how such a ban is unlikely to pass constitutional muster. Heller set up a "common use" test under which a handgun ban was thrown out. It's as plain as the nose on my face that this magazine ban would run afoul of the same thing. Most new handguns these days ship with factory 14-17 round magazines. The most popular rifle's standard magazine holds 30 rounds. Probably every gun owner has a firearm that was designed to accept or is capable of accepting a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. There are millions—probably tens of millions—of these magazines out there in lawful hands.

If it comes up, you can also talk about how most current and proposed gun laws wouldn't have helped. I see a lot of gnashing of teeth that Loughner didn't need a permit to carry concealed. But if such a requirement had been in effect, would it have prevented him from carrying his firearm that day? Of course not! He was planning on committing murder, so what would it have mattered had he also been violating a law against CCWing without a permit? Focus on the fact that being illegal doesn't actually prevent something from happening; it just sets up a lawful way for people who are caught doing it be somehow penalized. If you don't think you're going to get caught, it won't deter you one iota.

Also, the location was actually in a gun-free zone (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5670014&postcount=27). Looks like that helped.

Stonewalker

01-22-2011, 10:59 PM

Now, let's talk about the actual shooting. My understanding is that he shot away for 15 seconds and only when he paused to reload, then people rushed him.

I've read that Loughner was subdued when his 2nd magazine jammed. I've been making great progress pointing out that Cho at VA Tech used the more reliable standard 10 and 15 round magazines, reloaded many times and was able to kill many more. A skilled shooter can reload in 2 seconds flat. Banning 30 round magazines will not save lives.

Here is a link (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/010911_loughner_suspect) to a local paper describing the incident.
A woman tried to grab the gun from Loughner as he reloaded. Two others grabbed him as the second magazine jammed, Dupnick said.

Carnivore

01-22-2011, 11:05 PM

If any individual is willing to trade their life or freedom to kill someone, that person is already dead. You can never under any circumstances ever prevent a maniac from causing destruction. You can only hope on being able to stop them once they start.

The other thing is if asked why anyone would need a "hi cap" magazine, answers I use is what if the person that is protecting themselves is handicapped? Either unable to switch out mags fast or is one handed or one armed? 10 rounds might be enough if going up against one person in an ideal situation but what if there is more then one? Home invasions are rarely if ever only one attacker. Why does law enforcement carry "hi cap" mags? because they may need more. If a cop may need more then so too could a civilian and why should we be held to lesser capacity then law enforcement to protect ourselves. Even the Brady bunch says they understand that people have the right to protect themselves in the home. What if you are attacked by a group of individuals in a home invasion robbery.

Code7inOaktown

01-22-2011, 11:13 PM

3. His home was found full of left wing anarchist type stuff, hardly a Sarah Palin fan.

Nicki

I'd stay away from ascribing any political motives since no one really know what his motives were. Many of the things he has dabbled with, such as the Gold Standard stuff, are right wing. He's also toyed with anarchist stuff too from what I've read.

I'd stick to the real problem with Lougner and Cho: mental illness. Both were plain loony tunes yet nothing stopped them. Either of them could have driven a car into a crowd or blocked the emergency exits of a building before setting it afire or resorting to explosives. America has a serious problem with mental illness and the lack of proper care they can get. Whether Glock, knife, pipe bomb or arson, it doesn't matter. People don't talk about outlawing lead pipes, matches or knives when that's the choice, so why only guns?

pointedstick

01-22-2011, 11:14 PM

If any individual is willing to trade their life or freedom to kill someone, that person is already dead. You can never under any circumstances ever prevent a maniac from causing destruction. You can only hope on being able to stop them once they start.

The other thing is if asked why anyone would need a "hi cap" magazine, answers I use is what if the person that is protecting themselves is handicapped? Either unable to switch out mags fast or is one handed or one armed? 10 rounds might be enough if going up against one person in an ideal situation but what if there is more then one? Home invasions are rarely if ever only one attacker. Why does law enforcement carry "hi cap" mags? because they may need more. If a cop may need more then so too could a civilian and why should we be held to lesser capacity then law enforcement to protect ourselves. Even the Brady bunch says they understand that people have the right to protect themselves in the home. What if you are attacked by a group of individuals in a home invasion robbery.

To this, I would add that the discussion of "need" is irrelevant. We have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. If we're going to go down the rabbit hole of what people "need", it can get very uncomfortable very quickly. Ask if the host "needs" to eat steak every now and then? Does she "need" her automobile? Does anyone "need" a chainsaw, a machete, rat poison, air conditioning, or access to the internet? Of course not. But that's irrelevant. Banning items on the basis that they are "not needed" is a dangerous game that once started, is just as easily played by your opponents the next time they get control of congress… Ask her about Republicans' opinions regarding whether or not people need to have gay marriages or get abortions.

locosway

01-22-2011, 11:28 PM

The 33 round mags are reliable as illustrated here.

kBjUDCyDCuI

The problem with the magazine limit, as pointed out by others, is where do you stop? Why is it Ok to kill 10 people with 10 rounds? Now, what if someone at home runs out at 10 rounds, but needed that 11th round to stop a threat?

What's not reasonable for one person might be reasonable for another. Who are you to say what is best for me?

Now, what's interesting with McCarthy's bill, HR308, is that it will further class LEO's as a military type organization. There's no reason that LEO's should have military weapons on the street, but this is what they're proposing. LEO's are civilians, and allowing them to purchase 10+ round magazines for personal use and after retirement sets us up for a two class system. Those of us who are not LEO's, and those who are/were.

JDoe

01-22-2011, 11:50 PM

...Now, let's talk about the actual shooting. My understanding is that he shot away for 15 seconds and only when he paused to reload, then people rushed him...

An active shooter could resort to multiple firearms in case he wanted to continue firing without taking two seconds to reload or risk fumbling the reload.

My understanding is that there was a LTC holder running toward the gunfire ready to engage the shooter if required. Had there been a LTC holder or two in the crowd around Giffords it is possible that fewer people may have lost their lives or been wounded. Some may suggest that a LTC holder may not hit the active shooter and accidentally kill or wound an innocent bystander and that makes LTC inappropriate or dangerous. The thing is that even if innocent blood is spilled by the actions of the LTC holder lives are still saved if the active shooter is neutralized. The active shooter will usually continue killing people until stopped by bystanders, law enforcement or taking his own life as his ammo and resolve run out or he is confronted by law enforcement.

L84CABO

01-22-2011, 11:53 PM

The other thing is if asked why anyone would need a "hi cap" magazine, answers I use is what if the person that is protecting themselves is handicapped? Either unable to switch out mags fast or is one handed or one armed? 10 rounds might be enough if going up against one person in an ideal situation but what if there is more then one? Home invasions are rarely if ever only one attacker. Why does law enforcement carry "hi cap" mags? because they may need more. If a cop may need more then so too could a civilian and why should we be held to lesser capacity then law enforcement to protect ourselves. Even the Brady bunch says they understand that people have the right to protect themselves in the home. What if you are attacked by a group of individuals in a home invasion robbery.

Home invasions with multiple assailants is good. You could also site the LA riots as real current example of citizens having to defend their property, family and lives against angry mobs with police nowhere to be found. Katrina may be another one. Lets also not forget what the second amendment is really all about...it's not about duck hunting, target practice or sport shooting. It's about your ability to defend your freedom in what would likely be an outright war scenario. In all of these examples more is better.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Paul S

01-22-2011, 11:58 PM

You might5 also point to the failure of those who were aware that Loughner had mental issues and did nothing.

Specifically the Junior College administration which expelled him after several incidents of inane ramblings disrupting classes. Rather than notify county mental health authorities to at least TRY and get the guy some help the JC administration kept quiet. Why didn't the campus police pursue temporary commitment for a mental health review? If they did...what happened and why haven't we heard.?

Much like Cho at the VA Tech shooting...had the obvious mental health issue been pursued the outcomes might have been much less tragic. Also remind the interviewer that there MUST be formal adjudication of mental instability to be banned from purchasing a firearm.

CalBear

01-23-2011, 12:03 AM

It's worth mentioning that 10 round magazines are not even "standard" -- they're reduced capacity. It's not a case of banning "high cap" mags, it's an attempt to ban factory standard mags. Mention it can take a lot of bullets to stop an attacker, and it's hard to hit on every shot. There's a reason assailants frequently end up with 30+ bullets in them when the police take them down, and there's a good reason police are not using reduce capacity mags.

Carry laws had absolutely no relevance to this shooting, so anyone trying to attack Arizona's constitutional CCW is full of it. Anyone attempting to commit treason and multiple felonies by attempting an assassination and murdering several people doesn't give a cr*p about laws.

The guy was clearly schizophrenic and was prohibited from owning firearms. Any failures were not a result of lack of laws, but a result of agencies not reporting mental illnesses. But the reality is, he could just as easily have gotten black market guns, or made a bomb from easily obtained materials. Never underestimate the determination and resourcefulness of a crazy dude on a rampage.

At the end of the day, the question is what good will new gun control laws do? The answer is none. He was taken down not because of reloading, but because his extended magazine broke. A good shooter could carry several mags and reload within seconds. Or heck, he could just carry multiple guns. It wouldn't have been that hard. New laws wouldn't have prevented that, nor would they have prevented him from making a bomb if he had so desired.

johnthomas

01-23-2011, 12:08 AM

Be ready for the "we would be better of with a complete gun ban" argument.

CalBear

01-23-2011, 12:11 AM

Be ready for the "we would be better of with a complete gun ban" argument.
Yes and be armed with violent crime statistics from Europe -- they have a lot more of it than we do. Our problems with homicide stem more from gangs, drug wars, poverty and lack of education than guns. There's no evidence linking guns to high crime rates. It would be good to mention John Lott's studies that show permissive concealed carry laws = lower violent crime rates.

jdberger

01-23-2011, 12:12 AM

Reginald Denny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Denny_incident) probably would have found a 30 round mag handy. Now that he's handicapped and limited dexterity, he probably can't reload quickly or reliably.

Should he be limited (again) to 10 rounds if he needs to defend himself?

Stonewalker

01-23-2011, 12:15 AM

To this, I would add that the discussion of "need" is irrelevant. We have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. If we're going to go down the rabbit hole of what people "need", it can get very uncomfortable very quickly. Ask if the host "needs" to eat steak every now and then? Does she "need" her automobile? Does anyone "need" a chainsaw, a machete, rat poison, air conditioning, or access to the internet? Of course not. But that's irrelevant. Banning items on the basis that they are "not needed" is a dangerous game that once started, is just as easily played by your opponents the next time they get control of congress… Ask her about Republicans' opinions regarding whether or not people need to have gay marriages or get abortions.

Always good to start off the conversation with. Fundamentally speaking, this idea is pretty foundational.

If any individual is willing to trade their life or freedom to kill someone, that person is already dead. You can never under any circumstances ever prevent a maniac from causing destruction. You can only hope on being able to stop them once they start.

The other thing is if asked why anyone would need a "hi cap" magazine, answers I use is what if the person that is protecting themselves is handicapped? Either unable to switch out mags fast or is one handed or one armed? 10 rounds might be enough if going up against one person in an ideal situation but what if there is more then one? Home invasions are rarely if ever only one attacker. Why does law enforcement carry "hi cap" mags? because they may need more. If a cop may need more then so too could a civilian and why should we be held to lesser capacity then law enforcement to protect ourselves. Even the Brady bunch says they understand that people have the right to protect themselves in the home. What if you are attacked by a group of individuals in a home invasion robbery.

I think this is a great point if you refer back to what pointedstick said as well - banning based on lack of need is a dangerous game. But anyways this argument gets you a really good "in" because you can talk about equal protections. When it comes to fundamental rights, there are no classes of citizen. It is unconstitutional to create special classes of citizen that get to exercise any fundamental right just because they are in said class. So giving police "extra" 2nd amendment rights is patently wrong.

This is the same Equal Protections (http://www.suite101.com/content/gay-equality-assured-as-proposition-8-defeated-in-california-a274398) that Judge Vaughn used to strike down prop 8 in CA.

The Judge stated that during the trial it was "demonstrated by overwhelming evidence" that Proposition 8 violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Neuvik

01-23-2011, 12:23 AM

I'm trying to look for uses of the "high cap" mags in castle doctrine states...since they also have easy acsess to them. Unfortunatly in sane places like that...its just the news of a problem solved and they move on. Not much mention of the particulars.

pointedstick

01-23-2011, 12:25 AM

Be ready for the "we would be better of with a complete gun ban" argument.

That's an easy one: it's not constitutionally permissible. Heller and McDonald ensure it. We have to live in the world we're given, and no matter how much some may want to ban all firearms, it's as constitutionally prohibited as banning all newspapers or religions. Trying to argue against this one is tough because they're put in the position of claiming that supreme court decisions were wrongly decided, which makes them look like dopes.

fd15k

01-23-2011, 12:43 AM

Alan gura recently said something about this in the video on this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387740):

"Well, the problem with people like Loughner is that he had even one shot! It's not like it would have been a great thing if he had only killed three people, it would still have been a disaster! We need to make sure that people like Loughner don't get access to any kind of firearm and not to go after arbitrary bans on things that normal people use for legitimate lawful purposes."

So I'm wondering, what does he have in mind ? Mandatory mental checks for gun purchases ? :D

pointedstick

01-23-2011, 12:48 AM

So I'm wondering, what does he have in mind ? Mandatory mental checks for gun purchases ? :D

Yeah, if only there was a way to report someone as mentally ill or get them adjudicated as some kind of "mental defective" such that they would fail a background check. :D

pitchbaby

01-23-2011, 1:10 AM

Nicki, I was speculating on these points that day while the news coverage was just unfolding. I knew nothing more than anyone else at the time that I thought this through, but none of the facts involved seem to change my opinion that this could have happened also.... I honestly do not believe it was likely that the Glock jammed. Not to say that they never do... it is just not terribly common. I own one and of my several guns... it is probably among the most reliable. It is also a very low probability that the last round in the magazine was a stove pipe as some people have suggested in some articles and coverage I have seen and heard. In my mind... it is far more likely that "Jared" was an inexperienced shooter, so when his mag was emptied, he probably dropped the slide by accident, thinking that he was hitting the mag release... but then had to take a second to figure that out... in fact... if this was indeed the case, it is far more likely also that he would have been fumbling to re-chamber his weapon, possibly forgetting that he would have to do that in order to keep firing if he had indeed been able to get the magazine installed.

Now, as to the old lady who grabbed the magazine, would she have been able to fight it away from him if it had NOT been an extra long magazine? It's extended length created the perfect "handle" to assist her in fighting it out of his hand.

Now... (to change topics slightly) as to the people that would argue that Joe Zamudio (the guy inside the Safeway who went running out ready to shoot the perp) was acting in haste because he said he was ready to shoot someone ( I am paraphrasing here) I would argue to them that he showed incredible restraint by 1. Not having his weapon drawn at the first moment shots were fired (I understand this to be true, I could be wrong, but have not heard otherwise) 2. When he did see the gun in someones hands... he did overtake that person, but AGAIN showed incredible restraint by not drawing down on that person (The person he first saw with the gun was one of the people trying to subdue Jared) I wanted to bring this up because I have heard more than once that Joe was a perfect example of how Arizona's carry law could have turned this into a blood bath WHEN IN FACT... it has shown exactly the opposite... that law abiding citizens generally tend to be able to restrain themselves and gather facts rather quickly before pointing and shooting... also... perhaps because he was armed, it increased his likelihood of running toward danger because he knew that if he assessed a threat to his life, he could neutralize it quickly. At this point, anti's would argue that carrying a gun then puts people in more danger, but I would contend that by carrying, it may indeed lead to that particular person getting hurt if carrying a gun makes them braver... but without these people, who indeed would the heroes be? In the end... someone has to run toward the danger... it may as well be someone who can shoot back!

A lot to digest here... sorry to jack your thread a little... but I hope these points can be found useful.

hoffmang

01-23-2011, 1:17 AM

1. The 30 round magazines that the shooter used are notorious for lacking reliability. They are bought for use at the range to not have to reload and thus save money when paying for range time by the hour. In fact, had he used the factory capacity magazines of 15 rounds, he wouldn't have had the malfunction on the second 30 round magazine that allowed his shooting spree to be stopped. 10 round magazines would have been similarly reliable. Only a crazy person brings unreliable magazines to a gun fight. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

2. If this timeline had been transported to California, the shooter would not have been allowed to by the handgun he used. He would have been 5150'ed and probably converted into a 5250 as a competent mental health professional would have picked up on the classic signs of Schizophrenia. That would have lead him to have a 10 year ban on acquisition or possession of firearms. Luckily, the 5150 process has decent due process safe guards for gun owners who get taken in and are just depressed and not a danger to self or others - like the shooter was.

Those are the best talking points available and they have the added benefit of being true.

-Gene

KarLorian

01-23-2011, 2:47 AM

Always good to start off the conversation with. Fundamentally speaking, this idea is pretty foundational.

I think this is a great point if you refer back to what pointedstick said as well - banning based on lack of need is a dangerous game. But anyways this argument gets you a really good "in" because you can talk about equal protections. When it comes to fundamental rights, there are no classes of citizen. It is unconstitutional to create special classes of citizen that get to exercise any fundamental right just because they are in said class. So giving police "extra" 2nd amendment rights is patently wrong.

This is the same Equal Protections (http://www.suite101.com/content/gay-equality-assured-as-proposition-8-defeated-in-california-a274398) that Judge Vaughn used to strike down prop 8 in CA.

I would keep bringing up the subject of Equal Protection.
What if some G/L/B/T un-friendly location dictated that only Heterosexuals could carry a weapon or could have "Hi-Caps?"

By limiting regular folks and not LEO they do the same thing.

Scarecrow Repair

01-23-2011, 6:16 AM

You aren't talking to an audience of lawyers, you're talking to an audience of people who are probably pretty emotional about guns, whatever their opinions. Any arguments about it being a fundamental right are going to sound like hiding behind the law and ignoring their feelings. Go ahead and talk about 5150 and such, but stay clear of RKBA or you will lose them.

There's that old saying of lawyers that they should pound the facts, but if they don't have any good facts, then pound the law, and if that is against them too, then pound the table. If you bring in the second amendment, the audience will take it that you don't have the facts in your side.

I'm no good as a public speaker, but I have talked one on one with some hoplophobe friends, and the minute I even come close to the second amendment, founding fathers, anything like that, their eyes narrow and arms cross, and the argument has gone uphill in a big way. You have to stay away from that.

Tom Gresham

01-23-2011, 6:59 AM

Nicki, you do a good interview. You sounded good on the radio with me.

Remember that how you sound is at least as important as what you say. Listeners are judging you as well as your arguments. In this case, sounding calm and reasonable gives listeners a comfort with you which will go far in getting them to actually listen to what you are saying.

Last week I sat with someone who is a board member of a major ammunition company, and he was saying we should just agree to banning "high capacity" magazines after the Arizona attack. "We have to give them something," was his line. It didn't take long for me to turn him around, but it points out that many (most?) people want to "do something" in the wake of this latest shooting, and the "something" they are okay with is restricting our gun rights.

The audience hearing you is predisposed to trade away our gun rights for a *feeling* of more safety. It would be well to keep that in mind.

FWIW, at that dinner, I told him that ONE is the correct number. Huh? Well, if 33 is too many, then for some 27 would be a good number, and for others 10 is a good number, and for others five would be the right number for magazine capacity, and finally one is the perfect number.

He got it.

Zimz

01-23-2011, 8:36 AM

I would suggest using terms like "standard cap" instead of "high cap" and "magazine" instead of "clip". I know it's small but words make all the difference.

JimWest

01-23-2011, 9:09 AM

...Remember that how you sound is at least as important as what you say. Listeners are judging you as well as your arguments. In this case, sounding calm and reasonable gives listeners a comfort with you which will go far in getting them to actually listen to what you are saying...

This is everything. And something I learned from public speaking class is make it relevant. The audience you are dealing with knows well how demonizing something and jumping to conclusions can be wrong. Take your point from there and end on it.

choprzrul

01-23-2011, 9:32 AM

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-print.pdf

Are you the same Nikki that spoke at the gun rights conference? If so, review the materials that were provided. Remain calm when presenting. Perhaps have a friend present the typical questions that you might expect so that you can practice replying.

You might also point out that roughly 56 million people died in the 20th century following implementation of gun control. Here are a couple links for your review:
http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=9334
http://citizensoldierhandbook.com/index.php/Legal/a-little-gun-history-gun-control-genocide.html

You might have the reference to the SCOTUS decisions saying that the police have zero obligation to protect citizens. We are directly responsible for our own safety and self defense. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Good luck and have fun with the interview. Ask them if you can get a recording so that we can all learn from your experience.

**EDIT**

Having several examples of gun control oppressing minorities could be very effective also. An example might be the CA safe handgun roster negatively affecting the poor because they don't have access to inexpensive self defense.

.

Don29palms

01-23-2011, 9:37 AM

Gun contol does nothing except restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow the law. The criminals that have guns that make me want to carry my gun for protection shouldn't have guns to begin with. They are felons that don't abide by the law. If high capacity magazines are banned criminals will still have them and use them. Nothing was going to stop Loughner or Cho from doing what they did. There are laws against killing peoople but that didn't stop them.

Quinc

01-23-2011, 9:57 AM

Some good quotes here
:http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=181341

"Numerous studies [show] having a concealed-carry permit, having a firearm and the ability to use one, has thwarted crime without the firearm ever having been fired," she said.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

All the gun laws, regulations, rules, restrictions, plans and advisories in the world are not going to change the fact that criminals have guns, she pointed out.

"By definition, criminals break the law. All of these regulations do absolutely nothing [to stop] criminals," she said.

badhabit90

01-23-2011, 10:32 AM

i know this is probably late, but ...here goes...

high capacity or standard capacity...i wouldnt have made a difference in the shooting itself. as Hoffmang stated, "Only a crazy person brings unreliable magazines to a gun fight." so they (the political officials) want to 'ban' high capacity. at what point does one make a determination of how many shots can be fired into a crowd and deem it 'high capacity'?? if they banned 10 round magazines, and we were only able to purchase 5 rounds and killed with 5 rounds...see my point?? shot placement.

lets look at it from another angle...
everyone knows that there are 'threats against government officials' out there. there are people that are extremists...some just speak out, some take action. in this case, this person took action. people died. people were seriously injured. it was said in the original news cast that the father of the shooter collapsed when they told him it was his son. this raises questions.......

did the father know that the son was an extremest against the congress lady?? (later this was found out to be true with the materials found at the home) why didnt the father notify the local law enforcement?? where were the local police to AT MINIMUM to provide any security for the congress lady?? or even the judge?? had there been ANY type of security, this possibly would not have turned out this way. the shooter may NOT have been able to fire off as many rounds without receiving returning fire to him and possibly killing him....there is an inherent danger there as well, missing the shooter. but what is worse?? missing the shooter and him continuing to kill or injure ??? or return fire to stop the subject??

i did like it when Sarah Palin stated that ''President Reagan said ..'We must reject the idea that everytime a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker'.....Palin also goes on to state ''each individual is accountable for his actions. acts of monsterous criminality stand on their own. they begin and end with the criminals who commit them. not collectively with ALL the citizens of the state.''

so true , so true.

just my thoughts when i seen this on the news that day...

Jonl

01-23-2011, 12:22 PM

He commited murder which is illegal. He would still have and use a "high capacity" even if made illegal. No respect for the law. He could have just as easily had 3 guns all with 10 round magazines, and killed the same number of people.

Giffords would not be the target of a "right winger". She might be the most conservative democrat, she was formally a republican. If there is all of this hate and anger from extreme right wing, why are there not murders on a daily basis. This "right wing anger" was clearly channeled in this last election, peacefully. Guns and ammo sales have sky rocketed since Obama became President and national crime has decreased.

This individual clearly acted on his own.
Murder can not be prevented in anyway by legislation.

wash

01-23-2011, 4:21 PM

Nicki, my advise is to ignore the issue of magazine capacity. If you say I could shoot this fast and change magazines this fast, it kind of makes you sound like you could do something like that. I know that is not true but an anti will leap to that judgement.

The real issue is the mental health system. His family cared enough for him to keep him out of the system and he wound up doing something horrible. The problem is that mental institutions are not nice places and families who care will do everything to keep their relatives out. There is no middle ground and no mechanism to make him a prohibited person if his family does everything to hide his illness from the government.

Then talk about the price of freedom, that crazy people going on shooting rampages are very uncommon but they get a lot more publicity than most murders which are just as much of a tragedy. The laws we have were defeated by his family. Any law that would have prevented this tragedy would have most certainly infringed the second amendment rights of many many people who have done nothing wrong and will do nothing wrong.

Laughner is the criminal here, his family were accomplices and enablers. Any other blame has to be placed on the way our society deals with mental illness.

Gun laws and 30 round magazines are red herrings here.

nicki

01-23-2011, 6:29 PM

Thanks everyone,

I appreciate the comments, as always, I always view that I strive to improve my communication skills.

Of course I will go with "good" and ready to improve.

I really liked Gene's comment about how the guy would have been 5150 ed here in Cali.

While I don't like to strip people of any rights, there are individuals who by their own actions create a situtation to where there is a legitimate public safety concern to restrict their rights.

I do view the 30 round mag as a red herring issue. If I viewed gun ownership as a sporting issue, it might have some merit.

I personally view gun ownership as a safeguard to preserve our system of "ordered liberty", as a final check on our government should our government go into insurrection against the people.

Using that standard, the people must maintain the means, even if it means occassional tragedies like what happened in Arizona. The historical record shows that when government's themselves become criminal, the loss of human life massively outweighs what common criminals have done.

I do feel that something needs to be done and I am personally find it offensive that the VDers(Victim Disarmament advocates) always try to divert public attention away from "real solutions" to promote their agendas.

We should have had honest dialogue years ago after "Columbine", but you know what, nothing has changed.

If the other side came to us and talked about "mental health" and how we need to do something to control access of guns to mentally unbalanced people, I believe most of us would listen.

Instead they immediately jump on the "Prohibition bandwagon" and the people who actually would follow the ban would be the people whom ownership would be a non issue anyway.

What the other side has done now is cause a spike in hi capacity magazine sales.

Last time around, between the time Congress passed the AW ban and the time Bill Clinton signed the law, gun manufacturers made 1 million magazines per day.

Give us 30 to 60 days and we probably will have an extra 50 to 100 million more hi capacity magazines in private hands than we would have if it wasn't for the mag ban hysteria caused by the media.

I will be well preparred.

The focus of the interview will probably start with the Pink Pistols and I intend to come on very strong.

My alloted time will be about 10 to 15 minutes, so I will be brief and to the point. I will try to stick to 8 to 10 second soundbites.

I will flip hostile questions around and put the interviewer on defense if needed although I plan to do so in such a way that they come to the realization that their position is WRONG and I will give them an opportunity to recognize the error of their ways and save face.

Unlike most people, I enjoy a good argument.

Thanks again guys..

Nicki

Python2

01-23-2011, 6:47 PM

Good luck, Nicki.

wash

01-23-2011, 6:50 PM

About Gene's comment on 5150, you should be a little careful there, not too long ago you might have had something to worry about because of the way you dress.

We shouldn't rely on the present system to catch every person with mental health issues, it needs to be fixed to catch the criminally insane and to do a better job of helping everyone who has mental health issues. Until it's fixed some people will slip through the cracks and tragedy will follow.

The problem and solution have nothing to do with gun laws.

gunsmith

01-23-2011, 8:17 PM

to paraphrase a doc I saw on tv, no one helped Jared.
If you saw a diabetic having a seizure you would call an ambulance but with Jared his school and acquaintances knew he was a danger to himself and others yet were prevented by our cultures "mind our own business" conditioning. I've seen this to often, I now tell crazy people they are crazy and tell them to seek help. ( they never listen) unfortunately
big city police are reluctant to 5150 people- I've seen many dangerous people simply told to get lost by police.

hawk1

01-23-2011, 8:52 PM

...
My personal rate of fire with a semi with fast aimed fire is roughly 3 shots per second, if I was just hosing, I could easily hit 5 rounds per second.

Since my reload speed if I use pouches is roughly 1.5 seconds, if I was going on a so called spree, I could shoot 30 aimed rounds with 2 mag changes in roughly 15 seconds.

Of course I would be loaded my 4th mag at the end of 15 seconds and I would be ready to shoot more people.

If my insight is correct, I want to turn the high cap issue into what it is, BS, then focus on other issues, namely how this guy slipped through the system and how there are reports coming now about the local sheriff dropped the ball several times in the past.

In my opinion, if he's a savvy anti-gun'r he'll use those times you just spoke about against you and just argue for an outright ban on semi-auto's. He'll suggest that even though you have only a ten round magazine, you are just as dangerous as he was using 30 round mags. Maybe even say that in light of your admitted results you, or someone like you, could be an even bigger threat than he was...

I'd stick to the fact that he was a convicted drug user, probable mental disorder, and left wing whacko. Also that the Sheriff dropped the ball big time as a possible favor to the mother who works for the same county as the Sheriff.

todd2968

01-23-2011, 9:22 PM

I've read that Loughner was subdued when his 2nd magazine jammed. I've been making great progress pointing out that Cho at VA Tech used the more reliable standard 10 and 15 round magazines, reloaded many times and was able to kill many more. A skilled shooter can reload in 2 seconds flat. Banning 30 round magazines will not save lives.

Here is a link (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/010911_loughner_suspect) to a local paper describing the incident.

He also had 2 guns, keep in mind a crazy person will find a way.

510dat

01-24-2011, 12:38 AM

Nikki,

I just read over your points and I'd like comment on your points 2 and 3. Any and all discussion regarding his motivations, thought processes or political leanings are entirely futile because this person is extremely psychotic.

For most people, that term doesn't have any real meaning, so it's hard to describe what these people are like. Untreated schizophrenic people have thinking that is so disjointed that we can't really comprehend what they are processing.

We do know from some statements he made to various friends and professors that, among other things, he was seeing the sky as orange, grass as blue, and he was thrown out of one class for arguing with a math professor that six is actually eighteen, and he was baffled as to why the professor couldn't accept the truth. He described the real world as if it was a dream state, and less real than his delusions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12loughner.html?_r=2

As a student nurse, I spent a semester working with mental health patients. From that experience, I cannot emphasize enough how bizarre their train of thought can be.

We can add 2 + 2 and routinely get 4 as an answer. A psychotic person will take "2 + 2" and come up with a ten minute answer as to why the president is actually a monster who implanted a transmitter in his brain that makes green taste like mustard.

It's simply impossible to use any normal logical framework when trying to understand this guy's actions.

Dr Rockso

01-24-2011, 1:04 AM

One thing I might think to point out: if there were a ban on magazine capacities above a certain arbitrary number (such as 10) there would certainly be a shift in firearm designs for the civilian market. As we saw during the Federal AWB and to a certain extent in CA, given a 10-round constraint customers gravitate toward larger caliber offerings to make up for the loss of capacity. Future rampagers would likely be armed with those designs, which would probably be 10-round handguns in .45 ACP or similar. Also they might bring an additional gun or guns to avoid the reload problem. Does anybody think that Congresswoman Giffords would be alive today if she was shot in the head with a .45 ACP?

Stepping back, we know how rare incidents like Tuscon are. While you may add a slight or even moderate encumbrance for psychopathic gunmen, you're also adding a slight encumbrance to individuals who use guns for self-defense. Unlike a police officer, a typical individual is unlikely to be wearing a bat-belt complete with readily accessible reloads in case of a gunfight...what's in the gun is what's available. While it's unlikely for any individual to use more than 10-rounds in an encounter, that handicap must be balanced with the even rarer case of the mass shooter...without having numbers to support my position, I'd imagine that the Loughner situations are heavily outweighed by the 'good guy needs more than 10 rounds' situations. I find it hard to imagine that police departments would have so widely adopted the .40 S&W round with handguns that allow them 12-15 rounds if they didn't perceive that to be an advantage in a defensive situation.

N6ATF

01-24-2011, 1:14 AM

Does anybody think that Congresswoman Giffords would be alive today if she was shot in the head with a .45 ACP?

Setting aside the statistic that most gunshot wounds are non-fatal, I've heard of people surviving a .45 ACP headshot because of the low-velocity round hitting at an angle, curving around the skull and popping out the back. Though that may just have been BS.

Dr Rockso

01-24-2011, 1:37 AM

Setting aside the statistic that most gunshot wounds are non-fatal, I've heard of people surviving a .45 ACP headshot because of the low-velocity round hitting at an angle, curving around the skull and popping out the back. Though that may just have been BS.

I think the glancing shot you describe is pretty typical for non-fatal head shots. Regardless, my mention of .45 ACP was just an example. If you prefer, you can substitute any larger caliber ammunition and my point remains the same. Given an artificially constrained magazine capacity, the market will tend toward larger, more powerful cartridges in similarly-sized firearms to compensate. In the Congresswoman's specific situation, the bullet passed through her brain. Adding a larger cross-sectional area and more energy likely would have caused too much damage.

J.D.Allen

01-24-2011, 8:44 AM

I'd stay away from ascribing any political motives since no one really know what his motives were. Many of the things he has dabbled with, such as the Gold Standard stuff, are right wing. He's also toyed with anarchist stuff too from what I've read.

I'd stick to the real problem with Lougner and Cho: mental illness. Both were plain loony tunes yet nothing stopped them. Either of them could have driven a car into a crowd or blocked the emergency exits of a building before setting it afire or resorting to explosives. America has a serious problem with mental illness and the lack of proper care they can get. Whether Glock, knife, pipe bomb or arson, it doesn't matter. People don't talk about outlawing lead pipes, matches or knives when that's the choice, so why only guns?

Right. There have been two guys in the last few years who went on killing sprees in Japan with knives. Each one killed like seven or eight people before anyone was able to stop them. An old man killed ten people in L.A. several years back by plowing his car into a crowded farmer's market. Not having access to a gun would likely not have changed anything here. Not to mention that even if the law said he couldn't have a gun, does anyone actually believe that would have stopped him from getting one? Puh-lease.

Saying he should have been a prohibited person is just feeding the anti's fire.

not-fishing

01-24-2011, 9:20 AM

You probably already know but just in case there is an actual recent mass murder where standard sized magazines were used and many more people killed.

For a Counter to Anti Large Capacity Mag new anti-gun law we have Cho (Virginia Tech)

March 22 Cho purchases two 10-round magazines for the Walther P22 on eBay.

March 23 Cho purchases three additional 10-round magazines from another eBay seller.

March 31 Cho purchases additional ammunition magazines, ammunition, and a hunting
knife from Wal-Mart and Dick’s Sporting Goods. He buys chains from Home
Depot.

April 16, 9:15-9:30 am He fired 174 rounds, and killed 30 people in Norris Hall plus himself, and wounded 17.

All Cho's attack was accomplished with standard sized magazines including 10 round magazines.

Reginald Denny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Denny_incident) probably would have found a 30 round mag handy. Now that he's handicapped and limited dexterity, he probably can't reload quickly or reliably.

Should he be limited (again) to 10 rounds if he needs to defend himself?

the handicap is a great argument...
because then you are setting an example of people who will suffer from this type of legislation that others even non gunnies can relate too..

frankrizzo

02-05-2011, 2:58 AM

2. If this timeline had been transported to California, the shooter would not have been allowed to by the handgun he used. He would have been 5150'ed and probably converted into a 5250 as a competent mental health professional would have picked up on the classic signs of Schizophrenia. That would have lead him to have a 10 year ban on acquisition or possession of firearms. Luckily, the 5150 process has decent due process safe guards for gun owners who get taken in and are just depressed and not a danger to self or others - like the shooter was.

Sorry to dig up a slightly old thread, but a 5250 results in a lifetime Federal prohibition on firearms possession. I have one from 15 years ago (stupid teenager stuff, isolated incident), and there is no end in sight to my prohibition.

Quinc

02-05-2011, 10:21 AM

Niki how did it go?

Gray Peterson

02-05-2011, 11:13 AM

Sorry to dig up a slightly old thread, but a 5250 results in a lifetime Federal prohibition on firearms possession. I have one from 15 years ago (stupid teenager stuff, isolated incident), and there is no end in sight to my prohibition.

at least until the Legislature passes the bill to comply with the NICS improvement act of 2007.

nicki

02-05-2011, 4:10 PM

Interview went well, I will ask Becky for a link for podcast, I have to mail her something next week.

Questions were fair, had to spend some time clarifying that I wasn't a Republican Lapdog.

Did go into LBGT issues which I dealt with from a Libertarian/Constitutionalist viewpoint.

Basically, took a radical centrist point of view.

The Arizona shooting came up and I deflected the question to our failed mental health system.

Becky referred to the violence policy center, I commented that this is a organization that put out a press release saying semi autos are more dangerous then ful autos followed up with that our crime rate has beeen continually dropping while gun ownership has been skyrocketing.

Overall interview was friendly, of course after I put podcast on link, you guys may think different.

Nicki

Dreaded Claymore

02-05-2011, 8:27 PM

I can't wait to hear the podcast! It sounds like you did very well.

Hopalong

02-05-2011, 8:55 PM

My view and talking points would focus on the fact that this guy was on the edge and snapped.

There is no defense for that.

Honestly, all the second guessing, armchair quarterbacking, and 20/20 hindsight is pure speculation at best.

I really don't think that this kid could have been locked up as a 5150.

Even if he did claim 6 was 18.

I've got a friend who has been a math teacher at the local JC for 20 years.

I asked her how many kids does she know that have been kicked out of school and written weird things on the internet, facebook, text messages, or just plain paper.

She said, "lots".

frankrizzo

02-07-2011, 6:42 AM

Sorry to dig up a slightly old thread, but a 5250 results in a lifetime Federal prohibition on firearms possession. I have one from 15 years ago (stupid teenager stuff, isolated incident), and there is no end in sight to my prohibition.

at least until the Legislature passes the bill to comply with the NICS improvement act of 2007.